_Abraham and Sarah at the Court of Gerar_
(Elohist).
The chapter deals with an incident closely similar to that recorded
in 12¹⁰⁻²⁰. It is indeed impossible to doubt that the two are variants
of the same tradition; a view which is confirmed rather than shaken by
Strack’s enumeration of petty differences. A close comparison (see page
364 f. below) appears to show that the passage before us is written
from a more advanced ethical standpoint than that represented by
chapter 12: note the tendency to soften the harsher features of the
incident (⁴ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ¹⁶), and to minimise the extent of Abraham’s departure
from strict veracity.
_Source._――The narrative is the first continuous excerpt from
Elohist; and contains several stylistic and other peculiarities
of that document: especially [הָ]אֱלֹהִים, ³ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁷ (¹⁸ יהוה
is a gloss); אָמָה (Yahwist שִׁפְחָה), ¹⁷; לֵבָב (Yahwist לב), ⁵; see
also the notes on נִקָּיוֹן, ⁵; אָמַר אָל־, ²ᐧ ¹³; נָתַן לְ, ⁶; אָמְנָה, ¹² (compare
Dillmann 279; Holzinger 159; Gunkel 193).――The appearing of God
in a dream is characteristic of Elohist; and the conception of
Abraham as a prophet (⁷) is at least foreign to the original
Yahwist (but see on 15¹). Another circumstance proving the use
of a source distinct from Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ or Priestly-Code is that
Sarah is here conceived as a young woman capable of inspiring
passion in the king (contrast 18¹² 17¹⁷). Lastly, it is to be
observed that chapter 20 is the beginning of a section (20‒22)
mainly Elohistic, representing a cycle of tradition belonging to
the Negeb and, in particular, to Beersheba.
=1, 2. Introductory notice.=――The method of the narrator, Gunkel
points out, is to let the story unfold itself in the colloquies
which follow, verses ¹ ᶠᐧ containing just enough to make these
intelligible.――=1.= _the land of the Negeb_] see on 12⁹.――_between
Ḳādēsh_ (14⁷) _and Shûr_ (16⁷) would be in the extreme South of
the Negeb, if not beyond its natural limits. The words וַיָּגָר בִּגְרָר (note
the paronomasia) are not a nearer specification of the previous
clause, but introduce a new fact,――a further stage of the patriarch’s
wanderings. There is therefore no reason to suppose that _Gĕrār_ lay
as far South as Ḳadesh (_v.i._).――=2.= The bareness of the narration
is remarkable, and was felt by the Greek translators to be wanting
in lucidity (_v.i._).――_Abimelech, king of Gĕrār_] אֲבִימֶלֶךְ = ‘_Milk_ is
[my] father,’ is a genuine Canaanite name, compounded with the name
of the god _Milk_ (see Baethgen _Beiträge zur Geschichte Cölestins_
37 ff.). It occurs as the name of the governor of Tyre (_Abi-milki_)
in the Tel-Amarna Tablets (149‒156). There is no trace here of the
anachronism which makes him a Philistine prince (chapter 26); Gerar
is an independent Canaanite kingdom.――_took Sarah_] _sc._ as wife; the
same ellipsis as 19¹⁴.
* * * * *
=1.= וַיִּסַּע ] see 11².――אַרְצָה הַנֶּגֶב] אֶרֶץ הַנּ׳ only 24⁶², Joshua 15¹⁹, Judges
1¹⁵ (Yahwist), Numbers 13²⁹ (Elohist?).――גְּרָר] (10¹⁹ 26¹ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ¹⁷
[נַחַל גְּרָר], ²⁰ᐧ ²⁶, 2 Chronicles 14¹² ᶠᐧ†) LXX Γεραρα, Peshiṭtå
(‡ Syriac word); commonly identified, on the authority
of _Onomastica Sacra_, 240²⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ (ἀπέχουσα Ἐλευθεροπόλεως
σημείοις κε πρὸς νότον), with the modern _Umm Ǧerār_ (‘place
of water-pots’), 6 miles South-south-east of Gaza (so Rowlands,
_Holy City_, i. 464; Robinson [who did not find the name],
_Biblical Researches in Palestine_, ii. 43 f. [compare i. 189],
Holzinger, Gunkel, al.). This suits 26¹ (according to which it
was in Philistine territory), 10¹⁹ and 2 Chronicles 14¹³; but
hardly 26¹⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ, and it is certainly inconsistent with the notice
בֵּין קָדֵשׁ וּבֵין שׁוּר. There happens to be a _Wādī Ǧerūr_, approximately
13 miles South-west of Ḳadesh, which exactly agrees with this
description; and so Trumbull (_Kadesh-Barnea_ 62 f., 255) and
others have decided that this must be the biblical Gerar, while
others think there may have been two places of the name (Cheyne
_Encyclopædia Biblica_, ii. 1705 f.). The question really turns
on 26¹⁷ᐧ ²¹ ᶠᐧ: so far as the present reference is concerned, we
have seen that the argument rests on a misconception; and it is
not even necessary to assume (with Kautzsch-Socin) that ¹ᵃ is
a redactional clause, or (with Holzinger, Gunkel) that part of
Elohist’s narrative has been suppressed between ¹ᵃ and ¹ᵇ. It is
true that מִשָּׁם has no antecedent in Elohist, and it is, of course,
conceivable that it was written by Redactorᴱˡᵒʰⁱˢᵗ to connect
the following with a previous section of Elohist (Gunkel), or by
Redactorᴶᵉʰᵒᵛⁱˢᵗ to mark the transition from Hebron (18¹) to the
Negeb. A redactor, however, would not have been likely to insert
the notice ‘between Ḳadesh and Shur’ unless he had meant it as a
definition of the site of Gerar.――=2.= אָמַר אֶל־] = ‘said regarding’
is rare: 2 Kings 19³², Jeremiah 22¹⁸ 27¹⁹; compare א׳ לְ, verse ¹³,
Judges 9⁵⁴, Psalms 3³ 71¹⁰.――After Athnach, LXX inserts ἐφοβήθη
γὰρ εἰπεῖν ὅτι Γυνή μού ἐστιν, μή ποτε ἀποκτείνωσιν αὐτὸν οἱ
ἄνδρες τῆς πόλεως δι’ αὐτήν (from 26⁷ᵇ).
* * * * *
=3‒7. Abimelech’s dream.=――This mode of revelation is peculiar
to Elohist (21¹²ᐧ ¹⁴ 22¹ ᶠᶠᐧ 28¹² 31¹¹ᐧ ²⁴ 37⁵ 46², Numbers 12⁶
22⁹ᐧ ²⁰), and probably indicates a more spiritual idea of God than the
theophanies of Yahwist. It must be remembered, however, that according
to primitive ideas the ‘coming’ of God (so 31²⁴, Numbers 22²⁰) would
be as real an event in a dream as in waking experience.――=4a.=
_had not drawn near her_] Not an explanation of Abimelech’s good
conscience (which depended solely on the purity of his motives), but
of Yahwe’s words in ⁶ᵇ. _Why_ he had not come near her, we gather
fully from ¹⁷.――=4b, 5.= Abimelech protests his innocence.――_innocent
folk_]――‘such as I am’ (_v.i._).――=5.= בְּתָם־לְבָבִי] ‘unsuspectingly’;
compare 2 Samuel 15¹¹, 1 Kings 22³⁴; in the wider sense of moral
integrity the phrase occurs 1 Kings 9⁴, Psalms 78⁷² 101².――=6.=
_have kept thee back from sinning_ (_i.e._ inexpiably) _against
me_] The sin is not mere infringement of the rights of a privileged
person (Dillmann), but the moral offence of violating the marriage
bond.――_suffered thee not_] by sickness (verse ¹⁷).――=7.= The
situation is altered by this disclosure of the facts to Abimelech:
if he _now_ retains Sarah, he will be on every ground deserving
of punishment.――_he is a prophet_] in a secondary sense, as a ‘man
of God,’ whose person and property are inviolable: compare Psalms
105¹⁵.――On _intercession_ as a function of the prophet, Deuteronomy
9²⁰, 1 Samuel 7⁵ 12¹⁹ᐧ ²³, Jeremiah 7¹⁶ etc.; but compare Job
42⁸.――_that thou mayest live_] or ‘recover.’
The section (³⁻⁷) exhibits a vacillation which is characteristic
of the conception of sin in antique religion. Sin is not wholly
an affair of the conscience and inward motive, but an external
fact――a violation of the objective moral order, which works out
its consequences with the indifference of a law of nature to the
mental condition of the transgressor (compare the matricide of
Orestes, etc.; and see Smend, _Lehrbuch der alttestamentlichen
Religionsgeschichte_², 108 f.). At the same time God Himself
recognises the relative validity of Abimelech’s plea of
ignorance (⁶). It is the first faint protest of the moral sense
against the hereditary mechanical notion of guilt. But it is a
long way from Abimelech’s faltering protestation of innocence
to Job’s unflinching assertion of the right of the individual
conscience against the decree of an unjust fate.
* * * * *
=3.= על] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ על אנדת:
compare 21¹¹, Exodus 18⁸, Numbers 12¹ 13²⁴ (Elohist), Genesis
21²⁵ 26³² (Yahwist), Joshua 14⁶ (Redactor), Judges 6⁷.――בעלת בעל]
a married woman, Deuteronomy 22²².――=4.= To גּוֹי in the indefinite
sense of ‘people’ (_Leute_) we may compare Psalms 43¹, Daniel
11²³; but the sense is doubtful, and the idea may be that the
whole nation is involved in the punishment of the king (Strack).
Eerdmans (_Die Komposition der Genesis_, 41) offers the
incredible suggestion that גוי here has its late Jewish sense of
an individual ‘heathen.’ Geiger, Graetz, al. regard the word
as a gloss or a corrupt dittography. LXX has ἔθνος ἀγνοοῦν καὶ
δίκαιον.――=5.= נִקָּיוֹן] only here in Hexateuch; Elohist is addicted
to rare expressions. For נ׳ כַּפַּי, compare Psalms 26⁶ 73¹³.――=6.=
מֵחֲטוֹּ] for מֵחֲטֹא; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 75 _qq_.――נָתַן לְ׳] = ‘permit,’
31⁷, Numbers 20²¹ 21²³ 22¹³ (Elohist), Exodus 12²³ (Yahwist),
3¹⁹ (Redactor), Deuteronomy 18¹⁴, Joshua 10¹⁹ (Deuteronomic):
see _Oxford Hexateuch_, i. 192.
* * * * *
=8‒13. Abimelech and Abraham.=――=9.= _a great sin_] _i.e._, a state
of things which, though unwittingly brought about, involves heavy
judgement from God (see on ³⁻⁷ above).――_deeds that are not done_]
are not sanctioned by the conventional code of morals: compare 34⁷,
2 Samuel 13¹² etc.――To this rebuke Abraham (as in 12¹⁸ ᶠᐧ) has no reply,
and Abimelech proceeds in――=10= to inquire into his motive for so
acting.――מָה רָאִיתָ ‘_What possessed thee?_’ (_v.i._).――=11‒13.= Abraham’s
self-exculpation, which is at the same time the writer’s apology for
his conduct, consists of three excuses: (1) he was actuated by fear
for his life; (2) he had not been guilty of direct falsehood, but only
of mental reservation; (3) the deceit was not practised for the first
time on Abimelech, but was a preconcerted scheme which (it is perhaps
implied) had worked well enough in other places. Whether 2 and 3 had
any foundation in the Elohistic tradition, or were invented by the
narrator _ad hoc_ (Gunkel), we cannot now determine.――=11.= _There is
no piety_ (יִרְאַת אֱלֹהִים) _in this place_] Religion was the only sanction
of international morality, the _gêr_ having no civil rights; compare
42¹⁸: see Bertholet, _Die stellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu den
fremden_, 15. Compare 12¹².――=12.= _Besides, she really is my sister_]
Marriage with a half-sister on the father’s side was frequent among
the Semites (Smith, _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 191 f.),
and was allowed in ancient Israel (2 Samuel 13¹³), though prohibited
by later legislation (Deuteronomy 27²², Leviticus 18⁹ᐧ ¹¹ 20¹⁷).――=13.=
_When God caused me to stray_] The expression is peculiar, as if God
had driven him forth an aimless wanderer (Dillmann). It proves that in
Elohist, as in Yahwist and Priestly-Code, Abraham was an immigrant in
Canaan.
* * * * *
=8.= האנשים] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX,
Vulgate prefix כל.――=9.= מה עשית לנו] Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase)
= מה עשתי לך, rashly adopted by Ball, Holzinger, Kittel――חטאתי]
LXX ἡμάρτομεν.――=10.= מָה רָאִיתָ LXX τί ἐνιδών; so Vulgate, Ball
conjecture יָרֵאתָ; Gunkel רָעִיתָ. The translation given above is
taken from Bacher, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft_, xix. 345 ff., who cites many examples
from New Hebrew of the idiom (literally ‘What hast thou
experienced?’).――=11.= כִּי] _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_ כי יראתי כי.――רַק] = ‘[I should act otherwise] _only_,’
etc.: a purely asseverative force (Brown-Driver-Briggs)
seems to me insufficiently established by Deuteronomy 4⁶,
1 Kings 21²⁵, 2 Chronicles 28¹⁰, Psalms 32⁶.――=12.= אָמְנָה] _The
Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ [?ה]אמנם, as 18¹³, Numbers
22³⁷; but compare Joshua 7²⁰. These are all the occurrences
in Hexateuch.――=13.= הִתְעוּ] _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_ התעה. The construct of אֱלֹהִים (_plural eminent_) with
plural predicate is exceptional, though not uncommon (31⁵³ 35⁷,
Joshua 24¹⁹), and does not appear to be regulated in our present
text by any principle. A tendency to substitute singular for
plural is shown by 1 Chronicles 17²¹ compared with 2 Samuel
7²³; and it is probable that the change has taken place in many
cases where we have no means of tracing it: see Strack² 77;
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 145 _i_. A kindred and equally inexplicable
anomaly is the sporadic use of the article with this word (so
verses ⁶ᐧ ¹⁷). Both phenomena are probably survivals from a
polytheistic form of the legend.――אבי] _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_ + ומארץ מילדתי (as 12¹).――כל־המקום] determined by
following relative clause; so Exodus 20²⁴, Deuteronomy 11²⁴.
* * * * *
=14‒18. Abimelech makes reparation to Abraham.=――=14.= The present to
Abraham in 12¹⁶ was of the nature of _mōhar_ or purchase-price of a
wife; here it is a compensation for injury unwittingly inflicted. The
restoration of Sarah is, of course, common to both accounts.――=15.=
The invitation to dwell in the land is a contrast to the honourable
but peremptory dismissal of 12¹⁹ ᶠᐧ.――=16.= _see, I give ... to thy
brother_] For injury done to a woman compensation was due to her
relatives if unmarried, to her husband if married or betrothed (Exodus
22¹⁵ ᶠᐧ, Deuteronomy 22²³ ᶠᶠᐧ): Abimelech, with a touch of sarcasm, puts
Sarah in the former category.――_1000_ (shekels) _of silver_] not the
money value of the gifts in verse ¹⁴ (Strack), but a special present
as a solatium on behalf of Sarah.――_a covering of the eyes_] seemingly
a forensic expression for the prestation by which an offence ceases
to be seen, _i.e._, is condoned. The figure is applied in various ways
in Old Testament; compare Job 9²⁴, Genesis 32²¹, Exodus 23⁸, 1 Samuel
12³.――The clause וְאֶת־כֹּל וְנֹכָֽחַת is obscure, and the text hardly correct
(_v.i._). The general sense is that Sarah’s honour is completely
rehabilitated.――=17.= _God healed Abimelech_] The first explicit
intimation (see ⁴ᐧ ⁶) that Abimelech had been smitten with a bodily
malady, whose nature is indicated by the last word וַיֵּלֵֽדוּ.――=18.= A
superfluous and inadequate explanation of ¹⁷, universally recognised
as a gloss; note also יהוה.――עָצַר] see on 16².
* * * * *
=14.= צֹאן] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX
prefix אלף כסף (from ¹⁶) wrongly.――ועבדים ושפחת] probably a gloss
from 12¹⁶, this being the only instance of שִׁפְחָה in an Elohist
context.――=16.= הִנֵּה הוּא――אִתָּךְ] LXX ταῦτα ἔσται σοι εἰς τιμὴν τοῦ
προσώπου σου καὶ πάσαις ταῖς μετὰ σοῦ; Vulgate _hoc erit tibi
in velamen oculorum ad omnes qui tecum sunt [et quocunque
perrexeris]_; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase). The difficulties
of the verse commence here. The suggestion that הוּא refers to
Abraham (Abraham Ibn Ezra) may be dismissed, and also the
fantastic idea that Sarah is recommended to spend the money in
the purchase of a veil, so that she may not again be mistaken
for an unmarried woman (24⁶⁵)! The first question is, Whose eyes
are to be covered?――Sarah’s own (לָךְ), or those of the people
about her (לְכֹל וגו׳), or both (וּלְכֹל [with _The Samaritan Recension of
the Pentateuch_, LXX])? Dillmann adopts the second view, taking
לָךְ as _dative complement_. To this Delitzsch forcibly replies
that _dative complement_ before dative of reference is unnatural:
hence he takes the first view (לָךְ, dative of reference, and לְכֹל =
_bezugs aller_); _i.e._, “Her credit with her household, which
had been injured by her forcible abduction, would be restored,
and the malicious taunts or gossip of men and maids would be
checked, when they saw how dearly the unintentional insult had
been atoned for” (Ball). A better sense would be obtained if
לְכֹל אֲשֶׁר could be taken as neuter: ‘all that has befallen thee’
(Tuch, Holzinger, al.). That is perhaps impossible with the
present text; hence Gunkel’s emendation אָתָךְ (perfect √ אָתָה
with accusative: Job 3²⁵) is not unattractive.――וְאָת־כֹּל וְנֹכָֽחַת]
Untranslatable. LXX καὶ πάντα ἀλήθευσον; Vulgate _quocunque
perrexeris: mementoque te deprehensam_; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac
phrase) (‘about all wherewith thou hast reproached me’);
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ ועל כל מא דאמרת איתוכחת. The change to וְנֹכַחַתּ (2nd singular
perfect) is of no avail, the difficulty being mostly in וְאֶת־כֹּל,
which cannot be continuation of אִתָּךְ (Tuch al.), or of לָךְ כְּסוּת עֵינַיִם,
but must with Massoretic Text accents be taken with ונ׳. The
rendering ‘and before all men thou shalt be righted’ (Dillmann,
Delitzsch, Driver) is the best that can be made of the text.
The easiest emendation is that of Gunkel: וְאַתְּ כֻּלּוֹ נֹכָֽחַת = ‘and thou
in all this (affair) art justified,’ though the sense given to
כלוh has no clear example in the Old Testament. The more drastic
remedies of Ball do not commend themselves.――=18.= יהוה] _The
Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ אלהים.
* * * * *
XXI. 1‒21.
_Birth of Isaac and Expulsion of Ishmael_
(Yahwist, Elohist, and Priestly-Code).
The birth, circumcision, and naming of Isaac are briefly recorded in
a section pieced together from the three sources (¹⁻⁷). Then follows a
notice of the weaning festival (⁸), to which, by a finely descriptive
touch (⁹), is linked the Elohistic version of the origin of the
Ishmaelites (¹⁰⁻²¹). A comparison with the Yahwistic parallel (chapte
16) will be found below (page 324).
_Analysis._――²ᵇ⁻⁵ are from Priestly-Code (who by the way ignores
altogether the expulsion of Ishmael [see on 25⁹]): observe the
naming by the father and the exact correspondence with 16¹⁶
in ³, circumcision (⁴), the chronology (⁵); and the words אֱלֹהִים,
²ᵇᐧ ⁴; מוֹעֵד, ²ᵇ (compare 17²¹); מְאַת שָׁנָה, ⁵. ²ᵃ is to be assigned to
Yahwist (בֵּן ל ִזְקֻנָיו, _v.i._); and also, for the same reason, ⁷. There
remain the doublets ¹ᵃ ∥ ¹ᵇ and ⁶ᵃ ∥ ⁶ᵇ. Since the continuity
of Priestly-Code is seldom sacrificed, ¹ᵇ is usually assigned
to that source (יהוה, a scribal error), leaving ¹ᵃ to Yahwist
(יהוה, פָּקַד). ⁶ᵇ goes with ⁷ (therefore Yahwist: _v.i._); and
there remains for Elohist the solitary half-verse ⁶ᵃ (אלהים),
which cannot belong to Priestly-Code because of the different
etymology implied for יצחק. So Holzinger, Gunkel; Dillmann,
Strack differ only in assigning the whole of ⁶ to Elohist.――The
Yahwist fragments ¹ᵃᐧ ²ᵃᐧ ⁷ᐧ ⁶ᵇ form a completely consecutive
account of the birth of Isaac; which, however, is not the
sequel to chapter 18 (see on ⁶ᵃ), and therefore belongs to
Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ rather than Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ (Gunkel).――⁸⁻²¹ is
wholly Elohistic: אלהים, ¹²ᐧ ¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁰; אמה, ¹⁰ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹³; שים לגוי,
¹³ᐧ ¹⁸ (Yahwist עשה ל׳, 12²; Priestly-Code נתן ל׳, 17²⁰); and rare
expressions like חמת, ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁹; מטחוי קשת, ¹⁶; רבה קשת, ²⁰. Further
characteristics are the revelation of God by night (¹² ᶠᐧ), and
in a voice from heaven (¹⁷).
* * * * *
=1‒7. The birth of Isaac.=――=2.= _a son to his old age_] so
verse ⁷ 24³⁶ 37³ 44²⁰ (all Yahwist). All the sources emphasise the
fact that Isaac was a late-born child; but this section contains
nothing implying a miracle (contrast chapters 17, 18).――=3‒5.=
The naming and circumcision of Isaac, in accordance with 17¹⁹ᐧ ¹²
(Priestly-Code).――=6a.= _God has made laughter for me_] Both here and
in ⁶ᵇ laughter is an expression of joy, whereas in 18¹² ᶠᶠᐧ 17¹⁷ it
expresses incredulity.――=6b, 7= is the Yahwistic parallel. It has been
pointed out by Budde (_Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 224: so Kittel,
Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger) that the transposition of ⁶ᵇ to the end of
⁷ greatly improves the sense, and brings out the metrical form of the
original (in Hebrew 4 trimeters):
Who would have said to Abraham,
“Sarah gives children suck”?
For I have borne him a son in his old age!
Every one that hears will laugh at me!
* * * * *
=1a.= פקד] never used by Priestly-Code _sensu bono_
(Strack).――=2.= אלהים] LXX יהוה――=3.= הנולד־] pointed as perfect with
article (18²¹).――=6a.= צחק] The √ צחק never occurs outside of
Pentateuch, except Judges 16²⁵ (where יִשְׂחַק should probably be
read) and Ezekiel 23³² (but see Cornill and Toy), the Qal being
used only in connexion with Isaac (17¹⁷ 18¹²ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁵ 21⁶), while
Piel has a stronger sense (19¹⁴ 21⁹ 26⁸ 39¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁷, Exodus 32⁶).
The other form שׂחק (not in Pentateuch) is mostly later than
Jeremiah (except Judges 16²⁷, 1 Samuel 18⁷, 2 Samuel 2¹⁴ 6⁵ᐧ ²¹):
in four cases (Amos 7⁹ᐧ ¹⁶, Jeremiah 33²⁶, Psalms 105⁹) even
the name יִצְחָק appears as יִשְׂחָק. It will be seen that in Genesis
we have no fewer than 4 (17¹⁷ 18¹² 21⁶ᵃᐧ ⁶ᵇ) or 5 (21⁹?)
different suggestions of a connexion of יִצְחָק with √ צחק. Analogy
would lead us to suppose that in reality it is a contraction
of יִצְהָקֵאל, in all probability the name of an extinct tribe
(compare יְרַחְמְאֵל , יִשְׁמָעֵאל, etc.).――=6b.= יִצֲחַק] see Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 10 _g_.――=7.= מִלֵּל] Aramaic; in Hebrew rare and poetic.――On
the _modal_ use of perfect (‘would have said’), compare
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 106 _p_; Driver _A Treatise on the use of
the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 19.――בנים] plural of species; compare
Exodus 21²², 1 Samuel 17⁴³, Canticles 2⁹ (Dillmann). LXX has
singular.――לזקניו LXX ἐν τῷ γήρει μου.
* * * * *
=8‒10. Sarah demands the ejection of Ishmael.=――=8.= The occasion
was the customary family feast of the weaning of Isaac (Benzinger
_Hebräische Archäologie_² 131). The age of weaning in modern Palestine
is said to be 2 or 3 years (_ib._ 116); in ancient Israel also it must
often have been late (1 Samuel 1²² ᶠᶠᐧ,, 2 Maccabees 7²⁷ ᶠᐧ).――=9.=
_playing with Isaac her son_] The last words are essential to the
sense, and must be restored with LXX, Vulgate (see _Jubilees_ xvii. 4,
with Charles’s Note). It is the spectacle of the two young children
playing together, innocent of social distinctions, that excites
Sarah’s maternal jealousy and prompts her cruel demand. The chronology
of Priestly-Code, according to which Ishmael was some 17 years old,
has for uncritical readers spoiled the effect; and given rise to the
notion of Ishmael as a rude lad scoffing at the family joy, or to the
still more fanciful explanations current in Jewish circles.¹――=10.=
_with my son_] If this presupposes an equal right of inheritance as
between the sons of the wife and the concubine (Gunkel), it also shows
a certain opposition to that custom: compare the case of Jephthah,
Judges 11¹ ᶠᶠᐧ (see Benzinger _Hebräische Archäologie_² 296).――_this
slave girl_ (אָמָה)] In Elohist, Hagar is not Sarah’s maid, but simply a
household slave, who has become her master’s concubine.
¹ St. Paul’s allusion to Ishmael as persecuting Isaac
(Galatians 4²⁹, ἐδίωκεν) is based on this מְצַחֶק. For other
Haggadic interpretations, see _Bereshith Rabba_ § liii;
Driver _A Dictionary of the Bible_, ii. 503b, and _The Book
of Genesis with Introduction and Notes_ 210. Unchastity
(compare 39¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁷), idolatry (Exodus 32⁶, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ,
Rashi), attempted murder (2 Samuel 2¹⁴, Proverbs 26¹⁹), etc.,
are among the crimes inferred from this unfortunate word.
* * * * *
=9.= מְצַחֶק LXX παίζοντα μετὰ Ἰσαακ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἑαυτῆς; so Vulgate
(compare Zechariah 8⁵). The sense ‘mock’ (‘play with’ in a bad
sense) would require a following בְּ, but it is doubtful if it
actually occurs. 39¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁷ may be explained after 26⁸; in 19¹⁴
it means simply ‘play’ as opposed to serious behaviour (compare
Proverbs 26¹⁹). See above on verse ⁶.――On the pausal ־ֶ , see
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 52 _n_.
* * * * *
=11‒13. Abraham’s misgivings removed.=――=11.= _on account of his son_]
whom he loves as his own flesh and blood; for the mother, as a slave,
he has no particular affection.――=12.= It is revealed to him (by
night: compare ¹⁴) that Sarah’s maternal instincts are in accord
with the divine purpose.――_shall a seed be called to thee_] _i.e._,
‘in the line of Isaac shall thy name be perpetuated’ (Isaiah 41⁸,
compare Romans 9⁷, Hebrews 11¹⁸). The same idea otherwise expressed
in Priestly-Code (17¹⁹ᐧ ²¹).――=13.= Hagar’s child (still unnamed) is
also Abraham’s seed, though his descendants are not to be known as
such.――_a great nation_ (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_,
LXX, Peshiṭtå)] compare 17²⁰.
* * * * *
=11= end] LXX + Ἰσμαηλ (wrongly).――=12.= יֵרַע] LXX + τὸ
ῥῆμα.――=13.= _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX
read האמה הזאת לגוי גדול: גָּדוֹל also in Vulgate, Peshiṭtå.――לְגוֹי [ג׳]――שֵׁים]
so verse ¹⁸ 46³ (Elohist).
* * * * *
=14‒16. Mother and child in the desert.=――The sufferings and
despair of the helpless outcasts are depicted with fine feeling and
insight.――=14.= _a skin of water_] חֵמֶת (_v.i._), the usual Eastern
water-bag, answering to the of the _ǧirby_ of the modern Bedouin
(Doughty, _Travels in Arabia Deserta_ i. 227, ii. 585).――_and the boy
he placed on her shoulder_ (_v.i._)] compare ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁶.――_the wilderness
of Beersheba_ (see on ³¹)] implying that Abraham dwelt _near_,
but not necessarily _at_, Beersheba.――=15.= _she cast the boy_
(whom, therefore, she must have been carrying) _under one of the
bushes_] for protection from the sun (1 Kings 19⁴ ᶠᐧ). To save
Priestly-Code’s chronology, Delitzsch and Strack make _cast_ =
‘eilends niederlegen’――with what advantage does not quite
appear.――=16.= _a bowshot off_] out of sight of her child, but within
hearing of his cry.――The last clause should be read with LXX; _and the
boy lifted up his voice and wept_ (verse ¹⁷): the change of subject
being due to the false impression that Ishmael was now a grown lad.
Hagar’s dry-eyed despair is a more effective picture than that given
by Massoretic Text.
* * * * *
=14.= חמת] Only here (¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁹) = Arabic _ḥamīt_ (√ _ḥamita_,
‘rancid’?). On the forms חֵמַת, חֵ֑מֶת, or חֶ֑מֶת, חֵמֶת, see
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 95 _l_.――שם על־ וגו׳] The transposition
וְאֶת־הַיִּלֶד שָׂם עַל־שִׁכְמָהּ was suggested by Olshausen, and is by far the
best remedy for an awkward construct. In Massoretic Text it
would be necessary to take וְאֶת־ה׳ as second object to וַיִּתֵּן, and
שם על־שכמה as a parenthetic circumstantial clause (so Dillmann,
Delitzsch, Strack). It is an effort to evade the absurdity of
a youth of 17 being carried on his mother’s back.――=15.= השיחם]
‘desert shrubs’; see on 2⁵.――=16.= הרחק] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 113
_h_.――כמטחוי קשת] literally ‘as (far as) bowmen do’; LXX ὡσεὶ τόξου
βολήν, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase), hardly imply a different
text. On מְטַֽחֲוֵי (participle Palestinian √ טחה,――only here), see
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 75 _kk_.――ותשא וגו׳] LXX וַיִּשָּׂא [הַיֶּלֶר] אֶת־קֹלֹה וַיֵּבְךְּ.
* * * * *
=17‒19. The Divine succour= comes in two forms: a voice from heaven
(¹⁷ ᶠᐧ), and an opening of Hagar’s eyes (¹⁹).――=17.= _God heard_]
(twice) preparing for an explanation of יִשְׁמָעֵאל.――While God Himself
hears, the medium of His revelation is _the Angel of God_ (as 28¹²
31¹¹ 32², Exodus 14¹⁹), who by a refinement peculiar to Elohist (22¹¹)
speaks _from heaven_. This goes beyond the primary conception of the
Angel: see on 16⁷.――=18.= Hagar is encouraged by a disclosure of the
future greatness of her son.――=19.= _opened her eyes_] compare 3⁵ᐧ ⁷.
The tact of the narrator leaves us in doubt whether the well was now
miraculously opened, or had been there all along though unseen. In any
case it is henceforth a sacred well.
* * * * *
=17b.= אל־קול] MSS and _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_
את־קִ׳.――=19.= באר מים] LXX + חַיִּים,――attractive! (compare 26¹⁹).
* * * * *
=20, 21. Ishmael’s career.=――Here we expect the naming of the child,
based on verse ¹⁷: this has been omitted by Redactor in favour of
Yahwist (16¹¹).――=20.= The boy _grew up_, amidst the perils and
hardships of the desert,――a proof that _God was with him_.――_he became
a bowman_] (pointing רֹבֶה קַשָּֽׁת: _v.i._), the bow being the weapon of his
descendants (Isaiah 21¹⁷).――=21.= The _wilderness of Pārān_ is et-Tīh,
bounding the Negeb on the South.――His mother took him a wife _from the
land of Egypt_] her own country (verse ⁹): see page 285 above.
_Comparison of chapter 16 with 21¹⁻²¹._――That these two
narratives are variations of a common legendary theme is obvious
from the identity of the leading motives they embody: viz. the
significance of the name Ishmael (16¹¹ 21¹⁷); the mode of life
characteristic of his descendants (16¹² 21²⁰); their relation to
Israel; and the sacredness of a certain well, consecrated by a
theophany (16⁷ᐧ ¹⁴ 21¹⁹).¹ Each tale is an exhaustive expression
of these motives, and does not tolerate a supplementary anecdote
alongside of it. Chapter 21, however, represents a conception
of the incident further removed from primitive conditions than
16: contrast the sympathetic picture of nomadic life in 16¹²
with the colourless notice of 21²⁰; in 16, moreover, Hagar is
a high-spirited Bedawi woman who will not brook insult, and is
at home in the desert; while in 21 she is a household slave who
speedily succumbs to the hardships of the wilderness. In Elohist
the appeal is to universal human sympathies rather than to the
peculiar susceptibilities of the nomad nature; his narrative
has a touch of pathos which is absent from Yahwist; it is
marked by a greater refinement of moral feeling, and by a less
anthropomorphic idea of God.――See the admirable characterisation
of Gunkel, page 203 f.
¹ The well is not identified in Elohist. Gunkel’s view, that
it was Beersheba, has little to commend it.
* * * * *
=20.= ויהי רבה קשת] ‘and he became, growing up, an archer’; Vulgate
_juvenis sagittarius_ (so Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ). But קַשָּׁת is ἅπαξ
εἰρημένον, the syntax is peculiar, and, besides, the growing
up has been already mentioned. The true text is doubtless that
given above and implied by LXX ἐγένετο δὲ τοξότης. Peshiṭtå
(‡ Syriac phrase) also implies קֶשֶׁת; but there are further
divergences in that Version. רבה = ‘shoot’ (not so elsewhere),
might be a by-form of רבב (see on 49²³; and compare רַב =
‘shooter,’ in Jeremiah 50²⁹, Job 16¹³); but it may be a question
whether in these three cases we should not substitute רבה for
רבב, or whether in this passage we should not read רֹמֵה קֶשֶׁת with
Ball (see especially Jeremiah 4²⁹, Psalms 78⁹). The rendering
‘a shooter, an archer’ (Delitzsch), is clumsy; and the idea
that קַשָּׁת is an explanatory gloss on רֹבֶה (Kautzsch-Socin) is not
probable.
* * * * *
XXI. 22‒34.
_Abraham’s Covenant with Abimelech_
(Elohist and Yahwist).
Two distinct narratives, each leading up to a covenant at Beersheba,
are here combined. (A) In the first, Abraham, acceding to a request
of Abimelech, enters into a covenant of permanent friendship with
him, from which the place derives its name ‘Well of the Oath’
(²²⁻²⁴ᐧ ²⁷ᐧ ³¹).――(B) In the other, the covenant closes a long-standing
dispute about springs, and secures the claim of Abraham’s people to
the wells of Beersheba, where Abraham subsequently plants a sacred
tree (²⁵ᐧ ²⁶ᐧ ²⁸⁻³⁰ᐧ ³²ᐧ ³³).
_Sources._――The passage, except some redactional touches in
³²⁻³⁴, has usually been assigned to Elohist (Wellhausen, Kuenen,
Dillmann, Holzinger, Strack). Its disjointed character has,
however, been felt, and tentative solutions have been proposed
by several critics (compare Kautzsch-Socin _Anm._ 92, 93;
Kraetzschmar _Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten Testament_ 14,
31; von Gall, _Altisraelitische Kultstätten_ 46 f.; _Oxford
Hexateuch_ ii. 30 f.). The most successful is that of Gunkel,
who assigns ²⁵ᐧ ²⁶ᐧ ²⁸⁻³⁰ᐧ ³²⁻³⁴ to Yahwist, the rest to Elohist:
the reasons will appear in the notes. The analysis rests on the
duplicates (²⁷ᵃ ∥ ³⁰ᵃ, ²⁷ᵇ ∥ ³²ᵃ) and material discrepancies of
the section; the linguistic criteria being indecisive as between
Yahwist and Elohist, though quite decisive against Priestly-Code
(חֶסֶד, הֵנָּה, ²³; כָּרַת בְּרִית, ²⁷; בַּֽעֲבוּר, ³⁰). But the connexion with
chapter 20, and אֱלֹהִים in ²²ᐧ ²³, prove that the main account is
from Elohist; while יהוה, ³³, and בַּֽעֲבוּר, ³⁰, show the other to be
Yahwist. Since the scene is Beersheba, the Yahwistic component
must be Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ.――³²⁻³⁴ have been considerably modified
by Redactors. Procksch (10 ff.) holds that in the original
Elohist verses ²² ᶠᶠᐧ preceded ¹⁻²⁰; his detailed analysis being
almost identical with Gunkel’s.
=22‒24.= Abimelech proposes an oath of perpetual amity between his
people and Abraham’s, and the latter consents (Elohist).――=22.=
_Pîkōl_ (_v.i._), _his commander-in-chief_, seems here merely a symbol
of the military importance of Gerar: otherwise 26²⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ, where Pîkōl
is a party to the covenant.――=23.= _Swear to me here_] in the place
afterwards known as Beersheba (³¹). Abraham’s departure from Gerar,
and Abimelech’s visit to him in Beersheba, must have stood in Elohist
between 20¹⁷ and 21²² (compare 26¹³ᐧ ²⁶).――=24.= This unreserved
consent is inconsistent with the expostulation of――=25, 26= (Yahwist),
which presupposes strained relations between the parties, and repeated
disputes about the ownership of wells. Note (1) the frequentative
וְהוֹכִחַ, (2) the plural ‘wells’ (retained by LXX), (3) the fuller parallel
of 26¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ, which shows that the right to several wells had been
contested.――_And as often as Abraham took Abimelech to task about the
wells ... Abimelech would answer_]――that he knew nothing of the matter
(so Gunkel).――=27.= Continuing ²⁴ (Elohist). Giving (or exchange?) of
presents seems to have been customary when a covenant was made (1 Kings
15¹⁹, Isaiah 30⁶, Hosea 12²). The action would be no suitable answer
to verse ²⁶.――=28‒30= (Yahwist). _the seven ewe lambs_ are set apart
for the purpose explained in ³⁰; but the article shows that they must
have been mentioned in the previous context. It is clear from ³⁰ that
the lacuna is in Yahwist, not in Elohist; while Abimelech’s question
²⁹ proves that the lambs were not an understood part of the ceremony
(Dillmann).――=30.= _that it_ (the acceptance of the present) _may
be a witness, etc._] so that in future there may be no quarrel about
Beersheba.――=31.= belongs to Elohist: נִשְׁבְּעוּ, compare ²³ ᶠᐧ; שְׁנֵיהֶם, compare
²⁷.――בְּאֵר שֶׁבַע = ‘seven wells,’ is here explained as ‘Well of the Oath,’
the oath being the central feature of the _berîth_. The etymology is
not altogether at fault, since נִשְׁבַּֽע may mean literally to ‘put oneself
under the influence of seven,’ the sacred number (Herodotus iii. 8;
Homer _Iliad_ xix. 243 ff.; Pausanias iii. 20. 9).――=32a.= Yahwist’s
parallel to ²⁷ᵇ.¹――=33.= The inauguration of the cult of Beersheba
(Yahwist: compare 26²⁵). Among the _sacra_ of that famous shrine
there must have been a sacred tamarisk believed to have been planted
by Abraham (see on 12⁶). The planting of a sacred tree is no more a
_contradictio in adjecto_ (Stade in von Gall, 47) than the erecting
of a sacred stone, or the digging of a sacred well. The opinion
(Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger) that the subject is Isaac, and that the
verse should stand after 26²⁵, rests on the incorrect assumption that
no stratum of Yahwist puts Abraham in connexion with Beersheba.――_’El
‛Ôlâm_] presumably the pre-Israelite name of the local _numen_, here
identified with Yahwe (Gunkel: see 16¹³). Canaanite analogies are
Ἦλος ὁ καὶ Κρόνος (Eusebius _Præparatio Evangelica_ i. 10, 13 ff.),
and Χρόνος ἀγήρατος (Damascius _Difficulties and Solutions of
First Principles_ 123).――=34.= The assumption that Beersheba was in
Philistine territory being incompatible with ³²ᵇ, the verse must be
an interpolation.――On the historical background of these legends, see
after 26³³.
¹ ³²ᵇ would be a natural conclusion to Elohist’s narrative
(compare ²²), but for the fact that that source never speaks
of a Philistine occupation of Gerar. The last three verses,
however, seem to have been altered by a compiler.――It is
probable that Yahwist gave an explanation of the name of the
well, connecting it with the seven lambs; so Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ
(בירא דשבע חורפן).
Beersheba is the modern _Bi’r-es-Seba‛_, in the heart of the
Negeb, some 28 miles South-west from Hebron, and 25 South-east
from _Umm el-Ǧerār_. Its importance as a religious centre in
the Old Testament appears not only from its frequent mention
in the patriarchal history (22¹⁹ 26²³ ᶠᶠᐧ ³¹ ᶠᶠ 28¹⁰ 46¹ ᶠᶠᐧ),
but still more from the fact that in the 8th century its
oracle (compare 25²²) was resorted to by pilgrims from the
northern kingdom (Amos 5⁵ 8¹⁴). Von Gall (44 ff.) questions
the opinion that it was originally a group of 7 wells, holding
that there was but one, whose name meant ‘Well of the Oath.’
But that “among the Semites a special sanctity was attached
to groups of seven wells” is shown by Smith (_Lectures on the
Religion of the Semites_², 181 f.: compare Nöldeke _Archiv für
Religionswissenschaft._, vii. 340 ff.); and the existence of a
plurality of wells at Bi’r es-Seba‛ has never been disputed. See
Robinson _Biblical Researches in Palestine_, i. 204 ff.; Smith,
_Historical Geography of the Holy Land_, 284 f.; Robinson,
_Biblical World_, xvii. (1901), 247 ff.; Gautier, _ib._ xviii.
49 ff.; Driver _The Expository Times_, vii. (1896), 567 f.;
_Joel and Amos_² (1901), page 239 f.; Trumbull, _The Expository
Times_, viii. 89.
* * * * *
=22.= ופיכל] LXX prefix καὶ Ὀχοζὰθ ὁ νυμφαγωγὸς αὐτοῦ (from
26²⁶). Spiegelberg (_Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_, ix. 109)
considers this one of the few Egyptian names in Old Testament =
_p{<}Ḫ-r(j)_, “the Syrian.”――=23.= אם] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 149
_c_.――נין ונכד] (_proles et soboles_) an alliterative phrase found
in Isaiah 14²², Job 18¹⁹, Sirach 41⁵ 47²²†.――=25.= והוכח] “must be
corrected to וַיּוֹכַח” (Ball, compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 112 _tt_):
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ ויוכיח. But Massoretic
Text is probably right, with frequent sense of perfect given
above. For the following ויאמר (instead of ואמר), see Driver
_A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 114 β.――באר]
LXX φρεάτων, _ut sup._――=28.= הצאן] _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_ (which also omits את־) צאן. Delitzsch thinks
this one of the few cases (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 127 _e_)
where article determines only its own word, and not the whole
expression.――=29.= Read הכבשת with _The Samaritan Recension of
the Pentateuch_ (³⁰).――לבדָּֽנָה (_The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_ לבדהן)]. On suffix compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 91 _f_.
The form is chiefly pausal; and though the only other example in
Pentateuch (Genesis 42³⁶) is Elohist, 30⁴¹ (־ֶנָּה) is Yahwist, and
the form cannot be considered distinctive of Elohist.――=31.=
באר שבע] LXX Φρέαρ ὁρκισμοῦ, but in ³² Φρέατι τοῦ ὅρκου. The
construction (number in genitive after singular noun) has
been supposed by Stade to be Canaanite idiom (compare קִרְיַת אַרְבַּֽע,
23²).――=33.= אֵשֶׁל] Arabic _’aṯl_, Aramaic אתלא, Assyrian _ašlu_;
1 Samuel 22⁶ 31¹³ [in 1 Chronicles 10¹² אֵלָה]†, in both cases
probably denoting a _sacred_ tree. The word seems to have been
strange to versions: LXX ἄρουραν, Aquila δενδρῶνα, Symmachus
φυτείαν, Vulgate _nemus_, etc. The substitution of אֲשֵׁרָה proposed
by Stade (_v.s._) is uncalled for, though see _Encyclopædia
Biblica_, 4892 f.――עולם] _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_ העולם.――=34= is wanting in Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ (edited
by Ginsburger).
* * * * *